It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Ancient fish pens confirm Sea Level Change

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Ancient Roman coastal fish pens, have surprisingly confirmed one key prediction of C02 induced global warming. It provided an accurate record of sea changes over the past 2000 years, and they found that most the rise in sea level happened for the last 100 years, is likely to get worse, and that Human activity is the primary suspect.
 



www.newscientist.com
Coastal fish pens built by the Romans have unexpectedly provided the most accurate record so far of changes in sea level over the past 2000 years. It appears that nearly all the rise in sea level since Roman times has happened in the past 100 years, and is most likely the result of human activity.

Sea-level change is a measure of the relative movement between land and sea surfaces. Tide-gauge records show that the sea level has been rising 1 to 2 millimetres a year since widespread measurements began around 1900, but do not pinpoint when the trend started.

Earlier sea levels can be estimated from geological data, but the accuracy is limited to about half a metre, which is not enough to precisely chart the history of sea-level rise.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The way I see it the time to act to forestall some of these changes is rapidly disappearing, and if we don't act soon we are going to have to start adapting soon before things get real hairy. Even though some would have you believe that 1.5% C02 in the atmosphere isn't that much, it's rising on an exponential growth curve that is not sustainable by the planet.


South Cascade Glacier in
Washington in 1958 top
and 1995 below. Photo:
US Geological Survey

This is just one comparison out of many, but I thought it illustrates just how much fresh water is being lost. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed now, not in another 10 years.

Related News Links:
www.newscientist.com
www.newscientist.com
www.newscientist.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Global warming is REAL.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

[edit on 16-8-2004 by sardion2000]

[edit on 8-16-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Is there any correlation between this and the "Dead Zone" changes that are occuring along the Oregon shelf?

www.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Is there any correlation between this and the "Dead Zone" changes that are occuring along the Oregon shelf?

www.cnn.com...


I wouldn't think so, because I seem to remember a news story or a thread I read somewhere stated the reason for the
so-called "Dead Zones" for being as big as they are, is that the Oceans have absorbed about half of all the CO2 we have
released into the atmosphere and the increase in CO2 in the Oceans is increasing their acidity. Current life in the
Oceans can't cope with that yet, but the species that survive will thrive and create a whole new different ecosystem....
in a couple of thousand years...

BTW This is just another reason to put to rest the whole Oceanic Carbon Sequestering project that the Fasier Institute
suggested, it's just foolishness. We need to develop cleaner fuels and more efficient engines. On a side note did you know
that if the Car is re-engineered from the Bottom-Up(ie Molecular Manufacturing) we could make a Gasoline Burning Car
completely benign and get 100 mpg....at least in theory so it's safe to say that the best way to go for now is Hybrid Technology
as all of the dreams of Nanotech are a long way off but at least it's somthing to hope for.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The problem with this theory is that it fails to take into account the fact that the climate 2000 years ago was at one point, warmer then it is today.




posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Actually they have taken it into account. And discounted it.
www.atsnn.com...

Plus I would like to add that graphs like these can be very misleading. Alot of people would like to believe that there is this great debate on whether Global Warming is happening or not. But I have personally talked to about a half-dozen hardcore scientists and they were unanomous in saying that Humans are the cause of the current warming trend and that is what makes it hazardous compared to natural warming trends. And BTW The article doesn't even talk about Global Temperatures, it talks about Rising Sea level which has been directly linked to Human produced CO2.

Many more links to support this "theory"
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.fluoridealert.org...
www.elmhurst.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.iitap.iastate.edu...

And here are some graphs to counter the graph you posted, these things goes both ways and when you come down to it there is much more information pointing to the fact that we are artificially warming up our planet then there is studies that refute the fact. And the supposed "Most Comprehensive Study on Global Warming" That asserted that the Sun was to blame wasn't even Peer-Reviewed but it was immedietly held up on a pedistal by Pro-Oil lobbiests to hold back more regulation on CO2 emissions.




Notice the exponential curve that is now a completely virticle line. That is worrying IMHO.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I am not denying that there has not been an anthropogenic effect on the climate over the past 100 years or so, but it is important to note that there are similar natural fluctuations going on also. Yes the article was talking about sea level changes. What is the cause of those changes? Melting glaciers? Excessive groundwater use? Loss of wetlands? These last two are probably not going to have a major impact, but the loss of glacial and sea ice certainly will. If, however, at the same time that these fish pens were built, the average global temperature was warmer or the same as it is now, how is this possible?

Granted there are a number of simplifications here, not the least being that the average global temperature does not really tell you what the average local temperature was, and that may be a bigger key.

Yes, my response was oversimplified, but then again so was the article posted.

For the vast majority of its history, the Earth was warmer than it is now. On the other hand, I have no desire to return to living in a Paleolithic swamp.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
"Most likely human activity"? Great science there..Prove it.
The story could just as easily prove that guesstimates of +5" (~13cm) rise in mean sea level over the past century are way overblown - especially since Australia's National Tidal Facility can find no such rate of rise from a geologically stable platform with extensive shores on the Indian, Southern and Pacific Oceans.

I know how these folks work. I have a degree in Analytic Chemistry and often did projects for professors in my undergrad days analyzing water samples and such looking for pollution. Whenever samples turned out clean the profs would get irritated and send folks back out to get more samples, hoping that eventually I would find something. They don't make a name for themselves by reporting "no findings". I've yet to see any evidence of human initiated global warming that did not rely on major assumptions and leaps.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Apoc]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
lake michigan has been running below average for some time now, and way below all time highs:

www.glerl.noaa.gov...



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by spangbr
"lake Michigan has been running below average for some time now, and way below all time highs.."

But not below all time lows. Aside from increased demands taxing the water level, bad engineering is also to blame. Excerpt from documents found at www.lakelevels.org:
"Current low lake levels are caused by human intervention and can easily be repaired. All major sources of water into Lakes Michigan-Huron have been dammed. The only major outlet has been deepened and a new one created. The result of this has been a long-term lowering of the lakes by 15 inches and perhaps 30 inches in lower water years."

______________________________
**UPDATE**
08/24/04
Water rises in U.S. Great Lakes after near record low
______________________________


sardion2000 stated:
"Actually they have taken it into account. And discounted it."

The story behind the link you posted from Environment News Service News Wire said no such thing. It does not dispute nor mention the temperature anomaly data chart posted by HowardRoark (which originates from the website of Richard Muller, PhD, UofC at Berkeley).

The fact is that the Earth has been much warmer in the past during times where so-called "greenhouse gases" were not nearly as high as today. I maintain that there is no correlation between trends in global temperature anomalies (GTA) and "greenhouse gas" levels.

As found in another thread here on ATS, I posted a graph comparing CO2 data and GTA trends going back to 1856 from data freely obtainable data sets from NOAA and other sources.

Finding a more than negligible correlation between these two trends would be a stretch. Even if you add the other "greenhouse gases" such as CO, CH4, etc., the trends diverge even more.


sardion2000 said:
"Even though some would have you believe that 1.5% C02 in the atmosphere isn't that much, it's rising on an exponential growth curve that is not sustainable by the planet."

1.5% is incorrect. Rounding to 380 PPMV (Parts Per Million by Volume), that equates to 0.038% atmospheric CO2. Can anyone tell me how 0.038% of CO2 has enough heat capacity to warm the other 999,000+ PPM (99.962%)of the atmosphere? I didn't think so. Unfortunately, sardion2000, the degree of effect of "greenhouse gases" (aside form water vapor) upon climate is really only based on theory and little more.


sardion2000 also said:
(Pertaining to the temperature change VS CO2 graph) "Notice the exponential curve that is now a completely virticle line. That is worrying IMHO."

Interesting graph. According to the Temperature Change portion, a rough mean average indicates a -2C cooling trend.

As for the story which was the basis for this thread, NewScientist.com is considered by many to cater to the "green" side of the climate debate. Numerous tidbits of information also seem to be left out of the story. One wonders how they were able to accurately measure the shift in the land mass in 2000 years without the benefit of a GPS system. Any measurement by proxy is always subject to greater error than measurements by direct observation. But of course, sea levels have been rising. That's normal for an interglacial period such as the one we're currently in.


sardion2000 also said:
"..we could make a Gasoline Burning Car completely benign and get 100 mpg.."

And it would still emit CO2. Burn any hydrocarbon and the best you can achieve is CO2. If we truly wanted to reduce CO2 instead of only maintain the current levels, zero CO2 emissions would be required.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by Outland]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Outland, thanks for the reply. I'm doing alot of research on the subject and your data will prove very usfull. I however completely disagree with you on your conclusions though.

Here is another graph this is the controversial Hockey Stick. Notice the similarities to Howards graph? The only differance is it isn't zoomed in. Zoomed graphs can be very misleading. Ask anyone whos into Securities Trading.


Source from news.bbc.co.uk...



The story behind the link you posted from Environment News Service News Wire said no such thing. It does not dispute nor mention the temperature anomaly data chart posted by HowardRoark (which originates from the website of Richard Muller, PhD, UofC at Berkeley).


I was actually talking about other studies, not the one I posted above. I'll try to find the link for you. I'll be checking Mr. Muller out. His site seems pretty good. Allthough I seem to remember that there is a PhD Muller that works for ExxonMobil that has been crusading against the environmentalist. Is this the same guy?

Here is another link for you guys to chew over while I prepare a full rebuttle to Outlands post.

Cosmic ray link to global warming boosted

Even though I do not believe that the Sun is primarily to blame it does have a big affect, I do believe in reading what the opposition has to say. BTW did you check out ALL the links I posted? There is alot of info that supports what I'm saying.




And it would still emit CO2. Burn any hydrocarbon and the best you can achieve is CO2. If we truly wanted to reduce CO2 instead of only maintain the current levels, zero CO2 emissions would be required.


Now I know you don't want to debate Nanotech with me because I may not be an expert in the Global Warm 'Debate',but I am an expert when it comes to Nanotech and you are completely wrong since all the emissions in a gas power nanotech car will be filtered out. Infact you wound't even need an exhaust pipe. Do your research, then come a talk to me.

www.sciencenews.org...
www.foresight.org...
nanodot.org...


[edit on 17-8-2004 by sardion2000]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   


1.5% is incorrect. Rounding to 380 PPMV (Parts Per Million by Volume), that equates to 0.038% atmospheric CO2. Can anyone tell me how 0.038% of CO2 has enough heat capacity to warm the other 999,000+ PPM (99.962%)of the atmosphere?


Do this experiment. Get a tank of pure CO2 then hook it up to a pressurized plexiglass tank. Get a 1000 watt Halide lamp. Put a thermometer in the Tank. Turn on the Lamp. Start pumping in CO2 and watch the greenhouse effect in action. Very simple. Did it in high school chemistry.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Here is an interesting story on how the Bush Admin is politizing science which is what is happening to the Global Warming "Debate"

www.washingtonpost.com...
Here is a quote of some of the petitions.



The American Chemistry Council and others challenged data used by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as it sought to ban wood treated with heavy metals and arsenic in playground equipment.

Logging groups challenged Forest Service calculations used to justify restrictions on timber harvests.

Sugar interests challenged the Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration over dietary recommendations to limit sugar intake.

The Salt Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenged data that led the National Institutes of Health to recommend that people cut back on salt.

The Nickel Development Institute and other nickel interests challenged a government report on the hazards of that metal.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers petitioned the CPSC to retract data that ranked the risk of lint fires in various clothes dryers.


As you can see there is a rather large campaign right now to de-regulate alot of environmental and health regulations and I see this debate in the same light. It's gonna take alot more than just a couple of non-peer reviewed "science" articles and a couple of political debate to convince me that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no bad effects on us. If these articles were peer reviewed and accepted by mainstream science then I would completely agree with you. The evidence? They weren't peer reviewed. End of story. If they wish to submit it, they I say by all means submit it, but they didn't and thats makes me wonder who paid them.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Just one other thing, I want to stress how important peer review is to Science and Acedemia. Here is the definition according to Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org...



Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions. The process also assists authors in meeting the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are liable to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
With a switch to Biodiesel or Alcohol power we would be recycling the CO2 instead of filling the atmosphere up with more of it. The process could even rid us of some. It is the circle of life with cars instead of living beings. It can be obtained from algae (UNH Bio-diesel group). Alcohol can be obtained from a lot of places and despite what some would say, it won't challenge the world's food supply. Most corn is used for animal feed while humans starve. There is no shortage in the food supply, only the terrible reality of economics and cash flow.

With hydrogen fuel cells and a small diesel engine GM perfected a 108 mpg car only a few years ago. I believe the same could be done now without the fuel cells, the machinery cost is higher than your typical car though.

Imagine a small solar array for gathering power in the daytime, in-wheel electric motors (no power loss by direct drive), a small (bio)diesel engine to keep from running out of power, a sterling engine to recycle engine heat to electricity, and a fluid compression system for braking (used to generate electricity with a Tesla turbine, known to have up to 93% efficiency). The energy savings would be monumental.

I believe there is no energy crisis, only a political one.

Post edited to add links

[edit on 8/17/2004 by shbaz]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   


I believe there is no energy crisis, only a political one.


No global energy crisis yet.. but you gotta admit we're getting close to the brink, we gotta convince the powers that be that if we don't change soon we will have much more than a political crises, we will have a full on energy crises and we are seeing the bigginning stages right now. I know they said the same thing in the 70s but the Peak for new oil discovery is loooong past that chart has been crashing for years. The Peak for Cheap Oil is gonna come very soon, in the next 5-7 years IMHO, and if we don't do somthing fast we are going to be paying the economic consequences much sooner than any environmental ones. With that said I think both are very compelling reasons(Economic and Environmental) to get off of non-renewables soon. We can do alot in 5 years, the US has proved to the world what a large nation can do in a half decade, at huge cost mind you but the 50s were definately prosperous.




Man that car looks sick
Why isn't GM selling them right now considering the backlog of orders of Toyota and Honda hybrids
Thats kinda stupid and shortsighted of them. Maybe they want to go pure H2 FC. Seen the Hy-Wire?





posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I suggest that there is no energy crisis because I don't suggest using petroleum at all. Bio-diesel and Alcohol are both renewable (biological) products that recycle the CO2 that is emitted during combustion simply by living (the producing plants, that is). That's why I call it the cycle of life with cars. The plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2. You combust the oils or alcohol that is extracted from these plants and produce CO2, which is then breathed in by the plants again.

The reason GM did not market that car is because it uses hydrogen fuel cells. Search Google for the topic and you'll find a variety of reasons that it isn't viable. There is no practical means to transport hydrogen safely and cheaply at the moment. Most hydrogen today is produced through the use of petroleum anyway. Another reason is production/research cost, which I feel is a moot point. If they produced 20,000 of them today they would sell, IMO. When you compare energy density of compressed hydrogen to biodiesel or alcohol, you see a big reason to go the latter route. Hydrogen is also difficult to contain, being the smallest atom it will escape any container.

[edit on 8/17/2004 by shbaz]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Ah ok I understand. Thanks. Have you checked out AquaFuel(or bingofuel or magnegas as its called in the links below)
jlnlabs.imars.com...
www.santillimagnegas.com...
citebase.eprints.org...:arXiv.org:physics/9805031

I've already built a proof of concept already and I am working on Bingofuel Reactor 1.0 like design and try to get a natural gas generator to burn it. It's really clean too. Search around Google or ATS and you'll find lots of info.

EDIT: Links

[edit on 17-8-2004 by sardion2000]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Looks like plain old electrolysis.. I don't know that it is as efficient as claimed (150% overunity in the first link) because electrolysis is typically only 50% efficient (that's a 50% loss), but I'll keep reading, it looks interesting.

Mind you, overunity is theoretically impossible. If the effect is as efficient as claimed he is probably only releasing energy that is obtained from energy stored in the form of molecular bonds, not to be confused with over-unity, which is the creation of energy.

Keep us updated on the prototype, looks easy to construct and should be fun.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
No I don't think it is normal electrolysys because I believe the reason it works so well is because of the Carbon electrodes decay, where the Carbon bonds to the Hydrogen and Oxigen making a very combustable combo. I dunno about the effiency but I'll try to get the answer myself cuz I don't necisarily believe it either.

Nasa has also done tests on the Chemical composition of the Gas here is what they came up with. BTW I do believe that Blaze labs and JLN labs are credible sites. I just suspect that the Blaze Labs guys made some mistakes in their calcs or the equipment was malfunctioning, but I'll be checking it out myself of course


Here is the chem analysis done by Nasa
Hydrogen 46.483 %
Carbon Dioxide 9.329
Ethylene 0.049
Ethane 0.005
Acetylene 0.616
Oxygen 1.164
Nitrogen 3.818
Methane 0.181
Carbon Monoxide 38.370
Total 100.015

Anyway it should't be too hard to figure out how much power I get out versus how much I put in. If it is viable I will be reporting all my findings on ATS. Now all I need is a generator, because the construction phase of the AFG is about 3 hours...not even really.

EDIT: BTW Doesn't pure electrolysis produce pure hydrogen? Or does it have to go through another process to come up with H2?

[edit on 17-8-2004 by sardion2000]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Fish pens?
Is this find a sign of devolution?
I didn't know that fish could even write, let alone use pens.
Was that back when they had fish fingers?

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Netchicken]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join